In an interview with CNN today, Marco Rubio said in no uncertain terms that hes not going to be the vice president.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, widely speculated to be a top pick for the Republican presidential running mate, once again firmly denied he would join the GOP ticket.

Im not going to be the vice president, Rubio said Friday in an interview with CNN en Españols Ismael Cala. Im not.

We have two options. We can assume that Rubio meant to imply he wouldnt join the 2012 GOP ticket under any circumstances  OR  we can parse his words. He didnt say he wouldnt join the 2012 GOP ticket, after all. He said hes not going to be the vice president. Maybe that means hes still open to run with Mitt Romney  but he doesnt think they would win.

Maybe Rubio is smart enough to know the kind of trouble this would cause. He has been questioned about the citizenship of his parents many times before and unlike those who choose to ignore the requirements of the Constitution, hes not stupid.

Then I say he should be the real patriot and run. When asked for proof of citizenship, offer up a forged pdf file. Then let the real popcorn event begin.

51
posted on 04/15/2012 3:44:27 AM PDT
by trebb
("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)

There is no maybe to it. The natural born requirement has two components: 1) the person must be born here; 2) both his parents must be citizens at the time of his birth. Rubio was born here, but his parents were not yet citizens.

Rubio was born in the United States and is therefor a citizen by birth

Correct.

... and eligible to be President.

WRONG!

His parents were not citizens when he was born. Therefore, he is not a natural-born citizen. If you do not think the Constitution means anything, then LEAVE the US. My ancestors fought and DIED for the Constitution, and while I draw a breath, I will fight to move this country back to that sacred document.

64
posted on 04/15/2012 9:59:37 AM PDT
by backwoods-engineer
(I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)

Yes, Marco Rubio was reportedly born in the United States. Yes, Marco Rubio is reportedly a statutory U.S. Citizen by virtue of his birth on the soil of the United States with two foreign citizen parents owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign nation. No, Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen of the United States as required by the Constitution for eligibility to the Offices of the President and Vice President, because his citizenship status is dependent upon birth to parents whose allegiance to Cuba was determined by the law of nature in which children naturally acquire the sovereign allegiance of the child's parents at birth. You would have been correct if the Constitutional Convention had not rejected the original draft of the Constitutional article in which any U.S. citizen would have been qualified to the Offices of the President and Vice President. The Constitutional Convention, however, rejected the original draft at the suggestion of future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay, who asked for the article to make eligible only a natural born citizen owing allegiance only to the United States and its citizens at birth and thereafter. Every effort to interpret the article to include any and every U.S. citizen born on U.S. soil as a natural born citizen fails utterly when you consider the fact the article as it now appears in the Constitution invokes the natural law for birth to natural parents, while the rejected draft did not invoke the natural law for birth to natural parents.

Furthermore, some of the States at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution did not grant state citizenship and thereby U.S. citizenship to a child born to foreign citizen parents on the state soil and therefore U.S. soil. The granting of U.S. citizenship by operation of statute to every child born on any U.S. soil instead of natural law did not occur until many long years after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the natural born citizen clause. At the time the Constitution was adopted with the natural born citizen clause, some children born on U.S. soil were not granted U.S. citizenship, because they were not eligible to citizenship in the state in which they were born.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in testimony before a Congressional subcommittee commented on how the U.S. Supreme Court is evading the issue of eligibility to the Office of the President. Sotomayor and Kagan were appointed to the Supreme Court in part to deter any unfavorable actions by the U.S. Supreme Court against his eligibility to the Office of the President. At this point, the legal integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court has been compromised, insofar as Obama is ineligible to the Office of the President and all of his acts and appointments are null and void the same as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled with respect to the null and void acts of the Confederate States of America and the Confederate state governments.

There is also the precedent in which a state governor was removed from office, due to ineligibility in state citizenship, and his acts made null and void. Like so many Democrats of today, he thought he could declare himself a citizen in another state and vote in its elections at the same time he was being elected governor in another neighbor state.

As we have seen in the Obamacare cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, Kagan has apparently disregarded the laws regarding conflict of interest which required her to recuse herself from the case in which she played a direct role in writing the legislation that is the subject of the lawsuits over which she now sits in judgment. Consequently, the currently illegally constituted U.S. Supreme Court is by definition fundamentally incapable of producing a decision regarding eligibility to the Office of the President which is not already null and void.

It needs to be noted that under the laws of the United States there is no such thing as dual citizenship. Instead, there is a de facto recognition by the U.S. Government that individual citizens can act as if they are dual citizens without forfeiting their U.S. citizenship, but only because the U.S. Supreme Court has made decisions which restrain the ability of the U.S. Government to enforce laws which would forfeit U.S. citizenship for those persons who exercise concurrent foreign citizenship. In the event the U.S. Congress would enact further legislation closing the legal loopholes created by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the acts of exercising dual citizenship would once again be subject to forfeiture of U.S. citizenship under the past and current laws recognizing only U.S. citizenship.

The entire purpose of the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution was to deny the ability of any person to serve as Commandder-in-Chief of the “American Army” or today's U.S. armed forces and the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government who owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign and a foreign government at any time from birth onwards. The Founding Fathers wanted to prevent these offices from falling into the hands of a person who did not owe from birth their entire and exclusive allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the Citizens of the United States. Claiming that Rubio, Jindal, or any other candidate in any other political party can be eligible to the Office of the President or the Office of the President after having allegiance to a foreign sovereign, whether or not it was a voluntary act, is in blatant and gross defiance of the Founding Fathers’ stated purpose of the natural born citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Efforts to deny and ignore the original intent and literal meaning of the natural born citizen clause and the U.S. Constitution is tantamount to tearing up the U.S. Constitution and its requirement to amend the Constitution lawfully to institute changes in it.

Marco Rubio was a natural born citizen of Cuba, and he is now a lawful statutory U.S. Citizen; but he is certainly not a natural born U.S. Citizen.

Unfortunately, Rep. Allan West compromised himself with many conservatives by describing the presidential eligibility as “a distraction” from the upcoming election in conformance with the Republican Party talking points. This is all the more damaging for all Republicans employing those talking points when you note how the 2012 election is being rigged for unprecedented vote fraud. In particular, the Spanish company handling the voting results without any reasonable opportunity to audit for vote fraud makes the upcoming election a sham election no matter who wins it.

"Please quote exactly the part of the Constitution which you contend disqualifies Rubio in view of the fact that he was born in the United States."

I'll pinch hit Mr. DNA. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citiizen of the Unites States at the time of the Adoption of This Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President;neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

And to your response that we don't know what our framers meant by ‘natural born citizen’, and it wasn't defined in the Constitution, I'll explain that the framers wrote the Constitution without any definitions for a very good reason; they knew that the meanings of words naturally change. Wanting the the meanings in our Constitution to be understood eternally, they (Madison, St.George Tucker, Hamilton,...) used terms as understood by our framers.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite explained in the case, Minor v. Happersett, in which he affirmed the common law, “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,...”. Chief Justice Waite's confirmation was affirmed by every justice, and a hundred others who understood and never challenged Waite's decision. His decision depended upon the definition of the only class of citizen defined before the 14th Amendment, a natural born citizen. “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,...”

Chief Justice Waite also confirmed that there exactly two classes of citizen, natural and naturalized. He defined natural born citizens, and Article II told us that natural born citizenship is a requirement for the presidency. Barack Obama told us he is a naturalized citizen, naturalized because his mother was a citizen, even though his father was not. Marco Rubio's parents and Bobby Jindal's, and Chester Arthur's, and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, and Henry Kissinger's and Arnold Schwarzenegger's, and ... were not, which is why not one is Constitutionally eligible to be president.

Orrin Hatch tried to amend the Constitution for Schwarzenegger, and John Conyers tried for Obama. Neither succeeded. So Republicans ignored the Constitution to give John McCain the shot at the presidency he felt entitled to, in spite of having not been born on sovereign US territory - a sad but accurate technicality. Congress incorporated the Canal Zone a year after McCain was born. There is the definition, defined exactly as are other terms used in the Constitution. Deny the common-law and common language and we have no Constitution, which is what most on the left would appear to prefer.

You are not a reasonable person in this instance, because you refuse to recognize with reason how you are using the terminology exactly contrary to its meaning and historical usage. Citizenship by the doctrine of jus soli is a form of statutory citizenship granted to a person by the act of a statute. Consequently, citizenship by statutory act of jus soli (law of the soil) cannot be its very definition be its opposite, natural born citizenship arising out of natural law and not statutory law. Only jus sanguinis (law of the blood) arises from the law of nature, natural law, and natural born citizenship. This was acknowledged in a U.S. Supreme Court case by the explicit description of how a nation is embodied under natural law by the people born with blood relationships to the parents of that nation.

Furthermore, your interpretation of the clause is nonsensical, because it fails to note how the Constitution used the singular word of citizen in one place and the more narrowly defined natural born citizen clause in the other part of the Constitution. You cannot have it both ways by trying to wrongfully conflate citizen to mean the same thing as natural born citizen. They were different in 1797, and they remain different in 2012.

"You are not a reasonable person in this instance, because you refuse to recognize with reason how you are using the terminology exactly contrary to its meaning and historical usage."

You're kinder than I, WhiskeyX.

"In short, you subscribe to the definition of the Mr. Waite that you reference."

It's Chief Justice Waite of the United States Supreme Court, and the decision was 9-0.

"However, most reasonable people would not, instead recognizing that natural born citizen means exactly what it says: a citizen born on the United States, regardless of their parents status." You (DNA.2012) are implying that neither Chief Justice Waite, nor those who agree with the decision are by default unreasonable.

You've been here for a very short time to be pontificating on a subject that, by all appearances, you have only the most cursory understanding of.

Per voting rights, citizens are either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens; those who are born here are in the natural born citizens class, and that is applicable to eligibility for President as well.

“Rubio was born in the United States and is therefor a citizen by birth and eligible to be President.”

Not according to one of the founders, one Emmerich de Vattel, who although dead in 1767, well before the founding, is nevertheless held by some to be the sole and everlasting authority on what defines the qualifications for Potus in the US.

Note: Said definitions were noticably ommited from the Constitution, ammendments, leaving interpretation to those who came later.

The same people that cry out against using international law as a basis for proeeding in the US, seem to suggest this is one time for an exception.

I wonder if they want American troops tried in international courts, too?

If you are going to ignore and/or simply turn the definitions upside down and inside out to gainsay the evidence presented to you, why bother posting here? You certainly are not informing anyone. You are not engaging in any fruitful discussion. You’re just plugging up your ears, closing your eyes, and yelling loudly to shout everyone down. Youare not amusing anyone. Your stating a gross fallacy over and over again is more akin to Mad King George III rambling on to himslef than it is any form of exchange of facts and viewpoints.

Try learning the definition of natural law for starters. In particular, note it is the recognition of a natural fact, such as the birth to parents of a nation is the natural foundation of that society. Whereas the inclusion of a foreigner into a society otherwise composed of citizens born to citizen parents is a manmade artifact of a statute of law.

You ae just speaking total nonsense. John Jay suggested the addition of the natural born citizen clause specifically to deny eligibility to European immigrants who at any time from birth onwards owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign, such as the King of Britain. He didn’t do so just to hear his head rattle, which is what you are saying in effect.

Vattel was not a sole authority, because his work/s only summarized what was already in practice by custom and statute by many sovereigns and their nations. British law and custom in regard to citizenship was notably contrary to much of the Continental and other intrnational law in the 18th Century. Other sovereigns and their nations typically recognized some form of naturalization of a foreign born citizen, while Britain had came to deny the right of a person to change allegiance. it was this conflict between British law and most Continental legal systems regarding citizenship which prompted Vattel to summarize the existing laws of the Continent in contrast to those of England. The Founding Fathers of America relied upon the work of Vattel, because it was one of several most recent Continental works which helped to summarize the principles of natural law as practiced in Europe and the greater world.

It's completely relevant in terms of your being able to (or not) hold a remotely intelligent conversation on this subject. Your expressed opinions thus far (on this topic) appear quite uninformed and have the air of things you pulled out on some half-informed yet earnest "birther" at Real Clear Politics or the Washington Times' boards.

FR is a completely different animal, in that the people sharing information and opinions here are some of the best-read, well-researched (with citations, as a rule) and cogent individuals I've had the honor of interacting with anywhere, ever. I lurked on these threads for months before ever even signing up at FR to venture any commentary and then it was to ask questions for the most part at first instead of rushing in.

"There is a real world beyond your cyber-EchoChamber.

Would you be referring to the Free Republic cyber-EchoChamber that you yourself signed up for, or just this thread/topic?

Whatever. If you're determined to continue with the intellectually disinterested derision, I'll simply shake the dust off my sandals and continue on.

"I'll pinch hit Mr. DNA. 'No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citiizen of the Unites States at the time of the Adoption of This Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President;neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.'"

Just ran across this interview with a 30-year constitutional scholar by the name of Herbert W. Titus. It's 12 1/2 minutes long. Thread-worthy in its own right?

My ancestors also fought in the Revolutionary War: it isnt a rare distinction.

Isn't it, though, in an era of foreign invaders? How many could you find in South Central LA whose ancestors fought in that war? For damn sure Obama's paternal ancestors didn't. And he has no alliegance to this country. And that's why "natural born citizen" matters, and is NOT equal to "citizen." Wishing won't make it so, either.

Please quote exactly the part of the Constitution which you contend disqualifies Rubio in view of the fact that he was born in the United States.

You know which one. The phrase "natural-born citizen" means a citizen whose parents were citizens. You, and millions of others have been convinced otherwise by the media in order to perpetrate the illegitimate Barack Hussein Obama nee Barry Soetoro on this nation, styling himself as President.

I reject Obama as the legitimate president, because his father was not a citizen of the USA. (Indeed, it is even doubtful he was born here. See, I trust Sheriff Arpaio over the liar Obama and his minions.)

He is a foreign enemy of the Constitution of the United States. I reject Rubio, or any other person whose parents were not citizens, for the office of President, because the Constitution states "natural-born", which your upstart generation has perverted to mean anything you want.

I reject your base-born "President." I reject Rubio. He is NOT WORTHY OF THE OFFICE, because his parents were not citizens when he was born. I cling to the words of MY ancestors, who fought in that great war. Their words are still with us, and I believe them over your upstart generation and the perverted rulings that have issued forth from the "Supreme" Court which contravene the plain meaning of the Constitution.

And millions agree with me.

86
posted on 04/16/2012 7:02:26 AM PDT
by backwoods-engineer
(I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)

I think it was Karl Rove on OReilly said,No matter what any of them say when the actual offer is made you do not turn down a chance to be VPOTUS.I think it was Karl Rove on OReilly said,No matter what any of them say when the actual offer is made you do not turn down a chance to be VPOTUS

Maybe Romney should finger Rove for VP. We already know Rove is merely a hack and not a conservative.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.